update_mcp_integration_capabilities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by clarifying that this is a reversible toggle rather than a deletion, that only capabilities named in the array change state, that the effect is immediately visible to connected users, and that flipping 'enabled' restores prior state. These details (partial-update semantics, immediate user-facing impact, reversibility) are exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key safety property (reversible toggle, not deletion), followed by input sourcing. No filler and every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, annotations covering mutability/idempotency, and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: reversibility, partial-update scope, immediate visibility, and where to obtain inputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the array is a partial update where only named capabilities are affected, and it directs the agent to source valid names/types/states from a sibling listing tool. That clarifies semantics the schema alone leaves implicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Bulk enable or disable capabilities... on an MCP integration') and enumerates the capability kinds (tools, prompts, resources), so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It is distinguishable from generic update_mcp_integration because it is scoped to the capability array.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent where to source inputs: the id from list_mcp_integrations and current capability names/types/states from list_mcp_integration_capabilities. It gives clear context for use but does not address alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., versus update_mcp_server_capabilities or update_mcp_integration).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.